Marciano v. Olde Oak Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Robert
J. Santoro, with whom, on the brief, was Andrew S. Knott, for
the appellant (plaintiff).

Leah
M. Nollenberger, with whom was Robert G. Clemente and, on the
brief, Lorinda S. Coon, for the appellee (defendant).

Lavine, Sheldon and Flynn, Js.

The
plaintiff condominium owner sought to recover damages from
the defendant condominium association under a theory of
premises liability after she sustained personal injuries from
a fall while exiting the rear of her condominium unit. The
plaintiff alleged in her complaint that the defendant had
possession and control over the premises where she fell. The
condominium association declaration provided that each
condominium owner was responsible for the maintenance,
repair, and replacement of the area three feet parallel to
the rear boundary of his or her unit. The plaintiff failed to
respond to the defendant's requests for admissions that,
inter alia, the location where she fell was less than three
feet from the rear boundary of her condominium unit. The
trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary
judgment and concluded that, by virtue of the plaintiff's
failure to respond to the defendant's requests for
admissions, she was deemed to have admitted that the
maintenance of the area where she fell was her
responsibility, and that the defendant was not in possession
or control of that area. On the plaintiff's appeal from
the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant,
held that the trial court properly concluded that
there was no genuine issue of material fact that the
defendant did not have possession and control over the area
on which she fell and that the defendant was entitled to
judgment as a matter of law; by failing to respond to the
defendant's requests for admissions, the plaintiff was
deemed to have admitted that she was responsible for
maintaining the area where she fell, which defeated her
assertion that the defendant had a duty to maintain the site
of the incident.

Procedural
History

Action
to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as a
result of the defendant's alleged negligence, brought to
the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Haven,
where the court, Alander, J., granted the
defendant's motion for summary judgment and rendered
judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed to this
court. Affirmed.

OPINION

PER
CURIAM.

The
plaintiff, Mary Marciano, appeals from the grant of summary
judgment by the trial court in favor of the defendant, Olde
Oak Village Condominium Association, Inc. The plaintiff had
sought damages from the defendant for its alleged negligence
after she suffered personal injuries from a fall on April 14,
2012, while exiting her condominium unit from a rear
entrance. The plaintiff alleged in her complaint that the
defendant had possession and control over the premises where
her fall took place. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the
court erroneously concluded that there was no genuine issue
of material fact that the defendant did not have possession
and control over the area on which she fell. We affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

Our
standard of review is set forth in Practice Book §
17-49, which provides in relevant part that summary judgment
‘‘shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings,
affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is
no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.''
‘‘[T]he scope of our review of the trial
court's decision to grant the plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment is plenary.'' (Internal quotation
marks omitted.) DiPietro v.Farmington Sports
Arena, LLC, 306 Conn. 107, 116, 49 A.3d 951 (2012).

Our
resolution of the plaintiff's claim hinges on our
examination of her complaint, which alleges that the
defendant was responsible for the upkeep of the lawn on which
the plaintiff fell and that her fall was due to the
‘‘negligence and carelessness of the
defendant'' due to its failure to maintain the area
in which the plaintiff fell and warn the plaintiff of a
dangerous condition.

As the
trial court noted in its October 20, 2015 memorandum of
decision granting the defendant's motion for summary
judgment, the parties were in agreement ‘‘that
the defendant had the duty to use reasonable care to maintain
in a reasonably safe condition those areas of the premises
over which it exercised control.'' The court also
noted that the condominium association declaration, which was
admitted into evidence in support of the defendant's
motion for summary judgment, provided that each condominium
owner shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair, and
replacement of certain limited common elements, which
included the area three feet parallel to the rear boundary of
the unit.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The
plaintiff failed to timely answer the defendant&#39;s
requests for admissions and did not file any objection to the
requests or seek to further extend the March 1, 2014 deadline
set by the court for the plaintiff&#39;s answer. Those
requests stated, inter alia, &lsquo;&lsquo;[y]our fall
occurred when you stepped on a rock on the ground at the
bottom of your rear deck stairs, &#39;&#39; and that
&lsquo;&lsquo;[t]he location of the rock on the ground where
you fell is less than three feet from the rear boundary of
your unit.&#39;&#39;[1] The court concluded that, by virtue of the
plaintiff's failure to respond to these requests for
admissions, the plaintiff was deemed to have ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.